From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 19:03:50 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Jef writes
>
> > Some interesting research on (partially) biological basis for altruism.
> > See http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,53945,00.html
> > - Jef
>
> Well, this confirms what has been rather obvious all
> along, from an evolutionary perspective. It's true,
> in a certain sense, what they write:
>
> "A team from Emory University in Atlanta says they have
> resolved a question philosophers have been debating for
> centuries: Why do people cooperate with one another
> even when it is not in their best interests to do so?
>
> "The Emory studies revealed a biological theory that
> essentially says people cooperate because it makes
> them feel good."
Unless more was done than was reported this study seems prima facie flawed.
Axelrod conducted experiment with the prisoners dilemma years ago and from
memory a crucial factor in the decision to cooperate or defect (compete) was
the likelihood that one would meet up with that person again and that one's
"reputation" would then effect their treatment. In encounters where the
prospects of ones reputation not being effected are less different decisions
may be made.
(Source on Axelrod an "tit for tat" strategies and prisoners dilemma study.
Peter Singer's book (dec 200): How are we to live?)
>
> Yes. How else would evolution have worked to get people
> to cooperate?
My own gut feel her is that individuals are social way before they develop
rationality or language. We are born entirely dependent on our caregivers
for survival. Big brain low capacity for isolated survival. The tools that
give us an edge over other species like language take time for us a
individuals to develop. Our capacity to overcome stronger and faster animals
through evolution seems to have turned on our intellect and our capacity to
communicate and act socially. Also culture become a factor in intra species
conflict.
In his book The Darwinian Wars, (1999), Andrew Brown, described the fall
into depression and ultimately suicide (in 1974) of theoretcial biologist
George Price. According to Brown, (Price. something of a mathematical whiz)
"reformulated a set of mathematical equations that shows how altruism can
prosper in aworld where it seems that only selfishness is rewarded. The
equations had been discovered ten before by (William) Hamilton, but Price's
reworking was more elegant and of wider application. He had provided a
general way in which to measure the direction and speed of any selection
process; this makes possible, in principle, a Darwinian analysis of almost
anything." (Price waas shocked by his discovery) for although his equation
showed that truly self-sacrificing behaviour can exist among animals, and
even humans, it seemed to show that there is nothing noble in it. Only
behavior which helps to spread the genes that cause it can survive in the
very long term. Since man, too, is an animal, the human capacity for
altruism must be strictly limited; and our cpacity for cruelty, treachery
and selfishness impossible to eradicate. through algebra (brown argues),
George Price has found proof of original sin. (Brown continues) Before then
(Price) had been a dogmatic and optimistic atheist; he seems to have hoped
that man might otherwise become better and wiser, perhaps slowly, fitfully
and with reverses; but with no natural limit to the progress. His proof
(sic) that this could not happen contains, (according to Brown) to a
mathematically literate biologist, great beuty and elegance, but it also
seems to contain the proof theat beauty and elegance mean nothing to the
universe. ...the discovery of the equation for altruism plunged (Price) into
a profound and severe degression, from which he was rescued by a religious
experience which led him into a mania for good."
>
> The part that seriously bothers me is that such language
> can be immediately turned towards use by those that claim
> that no one ever does anything except for a selfish reason.
Why exactly does that bother you?
> In this "egotistical theory of altruism", there are no
> such things as literal acts of selfless charity or self-
> sacrifice towards an ideal end. One rationalizes in the
> very crudest way that, say, the fanatic (or soldier) gave
> his life to the cause as an act of selfishness, in order
> to gratify however fleetingly a certain portion of his
> brain, the reward circuit.
Seems to me that whatever the bedrock truth is about altruism or otherwise
the sooner we find it the better we can incorporate that insight into the
placing of society on a still stonger rational/ethical footing. A footing
that may be necessary if society is to hold together as the rate of
technological progress lifts to the point that traditional affections for
the species boundary as the place to draw our in-groups and out-groups is
likely to come up for some serious testing.
I guess I allude here to Hans Moravecs book Robot. Where the notion of X'es
(posthumans) competing in anything but the "end of history" is
foreshaddowed.
>
> Lee
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST